- (1.) The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgment and order dated July 24, 2007, by which the learned Tribunal held on concession that the rental income was to be treated as a business income. It is this order, which is under challenge at the instance of the assessee himself. Mr. Sen, learned advocate appearing for the assessee-appellant, submitted that a concession on a point of law cannot bind the assessee. He drew our attention to a judgment of this court in the assessee's own case, Azimganj Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, 2013 352 ITR 82wherein the Division Bench held as follows (page 87) : "... the subject matter of exploitation being unsold flats still owned by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly concluded that the income therefrom should be treated as income from house property by way of letting it out."
(2.) Mr. Sen, therefore, submitted that the order of the learned Tribunal to that extent is bad and should be set aside.
(3.) Mr. Sharaf, learned advocate, appearing for the Revenue, did not dispute the fact that in the assessee's own case in the aforesaid judgment, it was held by this court that the income on account of rent from the unsold flats should be treated as an income from house property. He, as a matter of fact, very fairly also drew our attention to the judgment of the apex court in the case of S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, 1972 83 ITR 700wherein the following view was taken (headnote) : "In case the assessee is the owner of the buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, he would be liable to pay tax under section 9 even if the object of the assessee in purchasing the landed property was to promote and develop a market thereon. It would also make no difference if the assessee was a company which had been incorporated with the object of buying and developing landed properties and promoting and setting up markets thereon.";